1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant’s KRW 44,338,668 and its relation thereto on September 8, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant citing the judgment of the court of first instance are the same purport as the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the evidence additionally submitted in the court of first instance was

Therefore, this court's reasoning is that it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the correction of a part as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

10 million won in sum (= KRW 15 million * 60 million * 60 million) of the first instance judgment No. 20-21 of the first instance judgment (= KRW 44,338,669 won (= KRW 709,418,700 x 1/16) of the first instance judgment (= KRW 709,418,700 x KRW 1/1668) of the first instance judgment “15 million * 60 million” (= below KRW 150,000) of KRW 4,338,668 of the first instance judgment of KRW 45 of the first instance judgment of KRW 15 of the first instance judgment of KRW 25 million (= KRW 60,000,000) of KRW 44,338,668 of the first instance judgment of KRW 160,700 x below 1/16).

2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety cannot be viewed as a partnership under the Civil Act, and if it is a partnership relationship under the Civil Act, the plaintiff's lawsuit constitutes an essential co-litigation and the plaintiff must all of the owners of the land including the defendant, and therefore there is a defect in the standing to sue.

On the other hand, in a case where a creditor of a union does not hold a joint liability with the property of the union against the union members, but exercises the pertinent claim based on the personal responsibility of each union member, he/she may file a lawsuit for performance against each union member (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da30705, Nov. 22, 191). The plaintiff does not hold a joint liability with the property of the union member, but claims for the amount of construction work based on the personal responsibility of the defendant who is the union member. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Additional determination on the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal

A. Plaintiff 1. As to the height of the part of the underground floor construction.